All posts by blackfriar

Doximity bigger than AMA

Very clever… wonder if they’re coming out here?

http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/09/doximitys-social-network-for-doctors-now-has-more-members-than-the-american-medical-association/

Doximity’s social network for doctors now has more members than the American Medical Association

Doximity’s social network for doctors now has more members than the American Medical Association
Shutterstock
January 9, 2014 9:57 AM

A social network could actually help your doctor give you better care.

Doximity’s physician network doubled in size last year to 250,000 members,outstripping even the American Medical Association in terms of numbers.

Its free network now reaches 35 percent of all doctors in the U.S., which CEO Jeff Tangney said is a “significant tipping point.”

doximity“This essentially means Doximity will get doctors the answers they want faster, and more reliably, than a simple Google search,” Tangney told VentureBeat. “Doctors can ask a critical mass of their peers any number of questions ranging from drug interactions to specialist advice, and it points to the demand and hunger for specialized, vertical social networks that meet an unmet need.”

Doximity has consistently grown since its launch in 2011, and it’s added a number of new features to make it much more than a “Facebook or LinkedIn for doctors.” In 2013 alone, the company built a recruiting tool called Talent Finderreleased an API to enable easy authenticationlaunched a “digital fax line,” and rolled out a continuing medical education (CME) platform.

Medicine is a collaborative profession. Doctors and other medical care providers rely on communication with their peers to get expert advice, ask questions, coordinate patient care, and discuss difficult cases. But medical communication is extremely sensitive and highly regulated, so it happened primarily offline for a long time.

That is beginning to change now as tech startups like Doximity create secure, HIPAA (Health Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act)-compliant, doctors-only places for them to connect online. Tangney said saves them “precious” time and reduces the “burden” of paperwork, which is increasingly important now that the Affordable Care Act is kicking in and millions more people have access to medical care.

“With Obamacare and baby boomers filling patient waiting rooms, maintaining a high standard of care demands ever greater efficiency from our health care professionals,” Tangney said. “Doctors need a secure way to connect and collaborate.”

More than 10,000 physician-to-physician messages are now sent daily through the site. Fifty-plus third-party sites use Doximity’s login API, and 200 paying clients are using TalentFinder, which facilitated 70,000 consulting and career offers to physicians. 

Tangney said most of the platform’s growth has been grassroots — doctors telling doctors .

Prior to founding Doximity, Tangney was the founder of Epocrates, a San Francisco Bay area company that develops mobile health applications. Doximity is based in San Mateo, Calif., and has raised just shy of $30 million from Emergence Capital Partners, Morgenthaler Ventures, and InterWest Ventures.

 

 

Google mucking around with contact lenses and health data

Interesting highly-speculative piece on Google’s visit to the FDA for a meet and greet.

The eye is a great place to stick a sensor given it’s continuity with the innards. It’s also a great place to view the innards. While we’re there, why not be powered by the innards at the same time?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/google-x-staff-meet-with-fda-pointing-toward-new-device.html

Google X Staff Meet With FDA Pointing Toward New Device

By Brian Womack and Anna Edney  Jan 10, 2014 4:01 PM ET

Google Inc. (GOOG) sent employees with ties to its secretive X research group to meet with U.S. regulators who oversee medical devices, raising the possibility of a new product that may involve biosensors from the unit that developed computerized glasses.

The meeting included at least four Google workers, some of whom have connections with Google X — and have done research on sensors, including contact lenses that help wearers monitor their biological data. Google staff met with those at the Food and Drug Administration who regulate eye devices and diagnostics for heart conditions, according to the agency’s public calendar.

As technology and medicine merge to give consumers more control over their health, innovators from mobile-health application developers to DNA analysis companies have struggled to meet the demands of federal oversight. The FDA ordered Google-backed 23andMe Inc. in November to halt sales of its personal gene test, saying it hadn’t gained agency approval.

Google, expanding beyond its core search-engine business, is investing in long-term projects at its X lab that may lead to new market opportunities, including the Glass devices, driverless cars and high-altitude air balloons to provide wireless Internet access. While some projects may not deliver significant profits and revenue, the company is committed to making bets on research and development, according to Chief Executive Officer Larry Page.

Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

Google has introduced Glass devices, computerized eyewear that lets users check e-mail… Read More

“Our main job is to figure out how to obviously invest more to achieve greater outcomes for the world, for the company,” Page said during a call with analysts last July. “And I think those opportunities are clearly there.”

Google Glass

Already, Google has introduced Glass devices, computerized eyewear that lets users check e-mail or access their favorite music. The devices, now being used by testers and developers, aren’t yet widely available for consumers.

FDA’s public calendar also shows the Google representatives met with the head of the agency’s office that reviews device applications for marketing approval, and the FDA adviser who wrote the agency’s guidelines for mobile medical apps. The FDA classified Google’s visit to Silver Spring, Maryland, where the agency is based, as a meet and greet. Jennifer Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the agency, confirmed the meeting and declined to provide further information.

One of the Google participants was Andrew Conrad, who joined X last year. Conrad is a former chief scientist at Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and co-founder of its National Genetics Institute.

Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg

A Google Inc. logo sits on a wall outside the entrance to the company’s offices in Berlin.

Among other attendees was Brian Otis and Zenghe “Zach” Liu. Courtney Hohne, a spokeswoman for Mountain View, California-based Google, didn’t return messages seeking comment on the company’s meeting with the FDA.

Engineering Work

Otis is on leave to Google from the University ofWashington in Seattle, where he is an associate professor in the electrical engineering department, according to the university’s website. Otis has worked on biosensors and holds a patent that involves a wireless powered contact lens with a biosensor.

One of Otis’ colleagues is Babak Parviz, who was involved in the Google Glass project and has talked about putting displays on contact lenses, including lenses that monitor wearer’s health.

“Noninvasive monitoring of the wearer’s biomarkers and health indicators could be a huge future market,” Parviz wrote in a 2009 paper titled “Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens.”

In 2012, the two were among the co-authors in a paper titled “Glucose Sensor for Wireless Contact-Lens Tear Glucose Monitoring” for the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits.

‘Wearable’ Lenses

“Advances in technology scaling, sensor devices, and ultra low-power circuit design techniques have now made it possible to integrate complex wireless electronics onto the surface of a wearable contact lens,” according to the paper.

In a presentation, Parviz said a tear drop provides many different components to give sensors various types of information about how a body is operating.

“There is actually one interface on the surface of the body that can literally provide us with a window of what happens inside, and that’s the surface of the eye,” Parviz said in a video posted on YouTube. “It’s a very interesting chemical interface.”

Liu, formerly with the medical-device manufacturer Abbott Laboratories (ABT), also holds a patent that involves devices that use bodily fluids to read levels of human substances such as glucose or cholesterol.

To contact the reporters on this story: Brian Womack in San Francisco atbwomack1@bloomberg.net; Anna Edney in Washington at aedney@bloomberg.net

Recommended vs actual eating…

Great post from Marion – recommended vs actual. As she says… oops!!

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2014/01/what-are-americans-eating/

What are Americans eating?

I’ve only just come across this USDA chart, which first appeared in an article in Amber Waves.

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) researchers looked at 1998-2006 grocery store food expenditures and compared what consumers buy to dietary guidelines for healthy eating.

Oops.

iPhone supported ambulatory PulseOx, Heart and BP monitoring

Some pretty cool kit launched at CES

iHealth Launches New Wristworn Pulse Oximeter, Ambulatory Heart and Blood Pressure Monitors at CES 2014

Posted By Gaurav Krishnamurthy On January 13, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

iHealth pulse oximeter iHealth Launches New Wristworn Pulse Oximeter, Ambulatory Heart and Blood Pressure Monitors at CES 2014iHealth (Mountain View,CA), a subsidiary of China-based Andon Health, launched a new wristworn pulse oximeter, an ambulatory heart monitor, and an ambulatory blood pressure monitor at CES 2014. The pulse oximeter continuously measures blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate at the finger tip, and is connected to a wrist strap that has an LED display showing the readings. The device also syncs via Bluetooth to the iHealth iOS app to display and track blood oxygen levels over time. Like other pulse oximeters, the device works by projecting two light beams, one red and the other infrared, onto the blood vessels in the finger. Oxygenated blood absorbs more infrared light and allows more red light to pass through, whereas deoxygenated blood absorbs more red light and allows more infrared light to pass through. A photodetector opposite the light emitters measures the ratio of red to infrared light received and from that calculates the amount of oxygen in the blood.

ihealth bmp iHealth Launches New Wristworn Pulse Oximeter, Ambulatory Heart and Blood Pressure Monitors at CES 2014The second device unveiled by iHealth is an ambulatory heart rhythm monitor that is attached to the user’s chest using an adhesive patch. The monitor syncs with an iOS device using Bluetooth connectivity and displays a complete ECG on the user’s phone.

The device is capable of notifying the user of any arrhythmia and will also be able to convey this information to a loved one or a caregiver. The device can save up to 72 hours of ECG data, and may one day serve as an option over Holter monitors for arrhythmia detection and characterization (see related story here[3]).

iHealth blood pressure monitor iHealth Launches New Wristworn Pulse Oximeter, Ambulatory Heart and Blood Pressure Monitors at CES 2014The third device launched by iHealth is an ambulatory blood pressure monitor that connects to a wearable blood pressure vest. The monitor is able to continuously track the wearer’s blood pressure without disturbing the user’s normal activity. It is able to connect to Android and iOS phones through Bluetooth 4.0 and can save up to 200 blood pressure readings. The blood pressure measurements can be registered in preset intervals, starting at every 15 minutes, or the user can have the device measure blood pressures at longer intervals of every 2 hours. The device is targeted at addressing the need for a continuous blood pressure monitoring device to better understand and track hypertension.

Both the iHealth ambulatory heart monitor and the ambulatory blood pressure monitor are not yet cleared by FDA.

Company page: iHealth… [4]

Press release: IHEALTH ANNOUNCES THREE NEW WEARABLE MOBILE PERSONAL HEALTH PRODUCTS AT CES 2014 [5]

Characteristics of successful innovators

Oaaahhh shucks… had the strange feeling he was talking about me throughout this post, seriously.

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/the-five-characteristics-of-successful-innovators/

[ALSO THIS RELATED POST:  http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/12/entrepreneurs-brains-are-wired-differently/]

The Five Characteristics of Successful Innovators

by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic  |   1:00 PM October 25, 2013

There is not much agreement about what makes an idea innovative, and what makes an innovative idea valuable.

For example, discussions on whether the internet is a better invention than the wheel are more likely to reveal personal preferences than logical argumentation. Likewise, experts disagree on the type and level of innovation that is most beneficial for organizations. Some studies suggest that radical innovation (which does sound sexy) confers sustainable competitive advantages, but others show that “mild” innovation – think iPhone 5 rather than the original iPhone – is generally more effective, not least because it reduces market uncertainty. There is also inconclusive evidence on whether we should pay attention to consumers’ views, with some studies showing that a customer focus is detrimental for innovation because it equates to playing catch-up, but others arguing for it. Even Henry Ford’s famous quote on the subject – “if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses” – has been disputed.

We are also notoriously bad at evaluating the merit of our own ideas. Most people fall trap of anillusory superiority that causes them to overestimate their creative talent, just as in other domains of competence (e.g., 90% of drivers claim to be above average — a mathematical improbability). It is therefore clear that we cannot rely on people’s self-evaluation to determine whether their ideas are creative or not.

Yet there are relatively well-defined criteria for predicting who will generate creative ideas. Indeed, research shows that some people are disproportionately more likely to come up with novel and useful ideas, and that – irrespective of their field of expertise, job title and occupational background – these creative individuals tend to display a recurrent set of psychological characteristics and behaviors. As summarized in a detailed review of over 100 scientific studies, creative people tend to be better at identifying (rather than solving) problems, they are passionate and sensitive, and, above all, they tend to have a hungry mind: they are open to new experiences, nonconformist, and curious. These personality characteristics are stronger determinants of creative potential than are IQ, school performance, or motivation.

Creativity alone, however, is not sufficient for innovation: innovation also requires the development, production, and implementation of an idea. This is why the number of “latent” innovators is far larger than the number of actual innovations, and why we all have at some point generated great ideas that we never bothered to implement. Here are a couple of mine: rent-a-friend – a service that enables tourists to hire locals for advice or simply some company – and location-based dating via an app that finds your nearby matches based on personality profiling. As with most of my ideas, these have since been successfully implemented by others, who also happened to have them.

The key difference between creativity and innovation is execution: the capacity to turn an idea into a successful service, product or venture. If, as William James noted, “truth is something that happens to an idea”, entrepreneurship is the process by which creative ideas become useful innovations. Given that entrepreneurship involves human agency – it depends on the decisions and behaviors of certain people – a logical approach for understanding the essence of innovation is to study the core characteristics of entrepreneurial people, that is, individuals who are a driving force of innovation, irrespective of whether they are self-employed, business founders, or employees. The research highlights several key characteristics (in addition to creativity):

  1. An opportunistic mindset that helps them identify gaps in the market. Opportunities are at theheart of entrepreneurship and innovation, and some people are much more alert to them than others. In addition, opportunists are genetically pre-wired for novelty: they crave new and complex experiences and seek variety in all aspects of life. This is consistent with the higher rates ofattention deficit hyperactivity disorder among business founders.
  2. Formal education or training, which are essential for noticing new opportunities or interpreting events as promising opportunities. Contrary to popular belief, most successful innovators are not dropout geniuses, but well-trained experts in their field. Without expertise, it is hard to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information; between noise and signals. This is consistent withresearch showing that entrepreneurship training does pay off.
  3. Proactivity and a high degree of persistence, which enable them to exploit the opportunities they identify. Above all, they effective innovators are more driven, resilient, and energetic than their counterparts.
  4. A healthy dose of prudence. Contrary to what many people think, successful innovators are more organized, cautious, and risk-averse than the general population. (Although higher risk-taking is linked to business formation, it is not actually linked to business success).
  5. Social capital, which they rely on throughout the entrepreneurial process. Serial innovators tend to use their connections and networks to mobilize resources and build strong alliances, both internally and externally. Popular accounts of entrepreneurship tend to glorify innovators as independent spirits and individualistic geniuses, but innovation is always the product of teams. In line, entrepreneurial people tend to have higher EQ, which enables them to sell their ideas and strategy to others, and communicate the core mission to the team.

Even when people possess these five characteristics, true innovation is unlikely to occur in the absence of a meaningful mission or clear long-term vision. Indeed, vision is where entrepreneurship meets leadership: regardless of how creative, opportunistic, or proactive you are, the ability to propel others toward innovation is a critical feature of successful innovation. Without it, you can’t attract the right talent, build and empower teams, or ensure that you remain innovative even after attaining success. As Frances Bowen and colleagues recently noted, there is “a vicious circle [whereby] innovation leads to superior future performance, but such investment can also give rise to core rigidities and hence less innovation in a future time period.” In other words, innovation leads to growth, but growth hinders innovation… unless innovation is truly ingrained in the organizational culture, which requires an effective vision.

In short, there is no point in just hoping for a breakthrough idea – what matters is the ability to generate many ideas, discover the right opportunities to develop them, and act with drive and dedication to achieve a meaningful goal.

Ideas don’t make people successful – it’s the other way around.

80-Tomas-Chamorro-Premuzic

Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is an international authority in personality profiling and psychometric testing. He is a Professor of Business Psychology at University College London (UCL), Vice President of Research and Innovation at Hogan Assessment Systems, and has previously taught at the London School of Economics and New York University. He is co-founder of metaprofiling.com. His book is Confidence: Overcoming Low Self-Esteem, Insecurity, and Self-Doubt.

HBR Blog: Resolving Health Care Conflicts with a walk in the woods

4 step process to resolving conflict:

  1. Have each stakeholder articulate their “self-interests” so that they are heard by the others. What does each need to get from this exchange?
  2. Look at where the overlap among these self-interests reveals agreement, what we call the “enlarged interests.” In our experience, these agreements always outnumber the disagreements.
  3. Collaborate to develop solutions to the remaining disagreements, or “enlightened interests.” This is the time for creative problem solving.
  4. Certify what has now become a larger set of agreements, or “aligned interests.”

Any outstanding disagreements are held to the side for future negotiations.

[…….]

The inclusion of all stakeholders is essential because people only truly embrace solutions that they help create. Anytime that one party tries to impose something on another, the natural inclination of the imposed upon party is to resist. A little time spent upfront engaging in joint problem solving saves many hours — and headaches — that come with a mandate.

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/four-steps-to-resolving-conflicts-in-health-care/

We have been engaged in health care negotiation and conflict resolution for two decades. We have worked on conflicts as mundane as work assignments and as complex as hospital mergers. We use and teach a simple four-step structured process that works in cases ranging from simple one-on-one interactions to extended multi-party discussions.

After assembling representatives of all stakeholders in a conflict, the first step is to have each stakeholder articulate their “self-interests” so that they are heard by the others. What does each need to get from this exchange? The second step is to look at where the overlap among these self-interests reveals agreement, what we call the “enlarged interests.” In our experience, these agreements always outnumber the disagreements.  The third step is to collaborate to develop solutions to the remaining disagreements, or “enlightened interests.” This is the time for creative problem solving. The fourth step is to certify what has now become a larger set of agreements, or “aligned interests.” Any outstanding disagreements are held to the side for future negotiations. We’ve taught people in as little as 30 minutes how to use this approach. (See our book Renegotiating Health Care for more detail on the process.)

We call this process the Walk in the Woods after a play that dramatized a well-known negotiation over nuclear arms reduction. The delegations from the United States and the Soviet Union were at loggerheads. During a break, the two lead negotiators went for a walk during which they unearthed their personal as well as each nation’s deeper, shared interests in peace and security. This understanding enabled them to break the deadlock and move forward.

The same negotiation principles that can reduce nuclear stockpiles can be effectively applied even at the front lines in health care. For example, there is often pressure to change who does what when new technologies are deployed or initiatives are undertaken to lower costs. Consider the situation in a traditional orthopedic practice where a physician sees every patient who comes through the door. Is this really best for the patient, the practice, and the larger system?

Most patients who arrive at an orthopedic office suffer from straightforward conditions such as a simple, non-displaced fracture or a sprain. These can be adequately treated by a properly trained physician’s assistant (PA), and patients can typically be seen much more quickly by a PA than by a specialist. If outcome quality and patient satisfaction can be maintained and costs lowered, this should be an easy move to make. Such shifts in responsibility, however, are often resisted and the resulting conflict can be acrimonious. Why?

Both physicians and patients have come to expect to interact with each other. Doctors prize their clinical autonomy and their relationships with those they treat, and the fee-for-service model rewards them for taking care of patients themselves. Patients, meanwhile, want to be treated by an “M.D.” and often a board-certified specialist rather than their primary care physician (PCP). The PCPs value their relationships with the specialists in the network and focus on their gatekeeper role rather than stretching the scope of care they provide. Insurers want to control costs, of course, and they and others exert pressure to divert simple cases from high-cost specialists to less expensive physician’s assistants or other non-specialist care-givers. No one is happy with the resulting conflict: Orthopods fear losing their patients; patients are anxious about getting lesser care; PCPs worry that their relationships with specialists will erode; and insurers and administrators find the resistance by all parties frustrating, time-consuming, and expensive.

Now, imagine that the physicians in our orthopedic practice host an open house Walk in the Woods discussion that includes referring PCPs, patients, and representatives from insurers. Engaging in the four-step process, the parties would find that high outcome quality, patient satisfaction, and keeping care affordable are on everyone’s list of self-interests. Through the process, the orthopedists could educate both the PCPs and patients on when a specialist’s expertise is truly needed. Patients could articulate how they weigh the trade-off between waiting time and the provider they would see. The insurers could explain some of the cost implications of different options. One can envision the idea of physician’s assistants treating routine injuries emerging from the process as each party identifies the benefits that meet their combined and self-interests:  The orthopods may be freed up to see a greater number of more complex and interesting cases; the PAs are able to work to the level of their ability; the PCPs expand their relationships with more members of the orthopedic practice; the insurer reimburses less for uncomplicated treatments; and patients would get appropriate care, save time, and help keep premiums down.

The two aspects of this approach that can be extrapolated to myriad other conflicts are the use of a structured process and inclusion of all key decision-making stakeholders. The structured process minimizes the ego battles and tangential scuffles by keeping all parties focused on productively resolving the central issues. Depending on the number of parties and complexity of the negotiation a Walk can take from 10 minutes to 10 days or more.

The inclusion of all stakeholders is essential because people only truly embrace solutions that they help create. Anytime that one party tries to impose something on another, the natural inclination of the imposed upon party is to resist. A little time spent upfront engaging in joint problem solving saves many hours — and headaches — that come with a mandate.

Health management self-delusion stats…

 

  • Humans are not wired to seek contradictory perspectives.  Instead, we seek to reinforce what we already believe to be true.  No surprise, therefore, that 80.6% of healthcare leaders believe the quality of care at their hospital is better than at the “typical” hospital.  And only 1.2% believe their hospitals are below average in performance.  As a result, most leaders in health care are slow to react to their changing environment because they are convinced that they already outperform their peers.

[NOTE THIS RELATED OBSERVATION: 
We are also notoriously bad at evaluating the merit of our own ideas. Most people fall trap of anillusory superiority that causes them to overestimate their creative talent, just as in other domains of competence (e.g., 90% of drivers claim to be above average — a mathematical improbability). It is therefore clear that we cannot rely on people’s self-evaluation to determine whether their ideas are creative or not.
FROM: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/the-five-characteristics-of-successful-innovators/]

From: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/bringing-outside-innovations-into-health-care/

Bringing Outside Innovations into Health Care

by Mike Wagner  |   9:00 AM October 28, 2013

Spurred by government reforms and market expectations, healthcare leaders are being forced to reinvent their organizations. The model for healthcare is being flipped upside down — from decades of focusing on acute care episodes and encouraging utilization to a future where successful organizations are able to reduce utilization, manage population health, and activate patients in the consumption (and delivery) of their own care.

But, most organizations are likely to fail in this pursuit. History shows that 65% of transformation efforts yield no improvement while 20% of efforts result in worsened outcomes.  Even when there is improvement, performance usually returns to previous levels within a few years.

This failure is not for lack of effort — health systems are making massive investments in new infrastructure, technology, processes and managerial approaches designed to manage change, such as electronic health records, Six Sigma and Lean Management.  But, all of these efforts are dependent on people for both initial implementation and long term execution. The only organizations that will prosper in this environment of disruptive and massive change are those that build a resilient and adaptive culture in which staff members:

  • Welcome and seek change, rather than resist it;
  • Experiment and innovate, rather than maintain the status quo; and
  • Make hard decisions without relying on approval from senior leaders.

There is no simple or single approach to building such a culture. But in our experience helping hundreds of hospitals and health systems manage this transformation, we have found three disciplines that are essential to the effort:  Importing new knowledge, strategically deploying existing skills, and disseminating leadership across the ranks.  This and posts to follow will explore each of these disciplines.

Importing New Knowledge

While businesses in other sectors have become adept at bringing in ideas from outside their walls, health care has lagged behind. A key reason is that healthcare leaders are often blind when it comes to creatively responding to the industry’s challenges.  The source of this blindness is twofold.

  • Humans are not wired to seek contradictory perspectives.  Instead, we seek to reinforce what we already believe to be true.  No surprise, therefore, that 80.6% of healthcare leaders believe the quality of care at their hospital is better than at the “typical” hospital.  And only 1.2% believe their hospitals are below average in performance.  As a result, most leaders in health care are slow to react to their changing environment because they are convinced that they already outperform their peers.
  • The second blinder is more common in health care than in other sectors — leaders often actively isolate themselves from the outside world, believing that their industry’s challenges are entirely unique.  These leaders resist the idea of learning from exemplars outside of health care.  As a result, they are often ignorant of the managerial advances being made in other industries.

To respond to disruptive change, health care leaders need to first acknowledge their blindness and then actively overcome it by learning how other industries are addressing similar challenges. This requires developing creative approaches to finding new ideas from outside of healthcare. While this concept has been around for some time (pioneers like Virginia Mason started importing lean six-sigma practices into health care at least a decade ago) it is still not widely accepted and is rarely done as a matter of routine.

One hospital that has done this well is Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Indiana. They introduced the concept of the “Innovisit” — a routine and structured outreach that sends staff members to visit businesses in other industries.  Support from the top is critical to the success of such initiatives, as it has been at Memorial where president and CEO Phil Newbold has championed the program.

At Memorial, each Innovisit involves a cross-functional team of “Innovisitors” who have been specially recruited and prepared for these events.  Visits are carefully planned with the host organization and key questions are crafted in advance.  Upon their return, innovisitors share their observations during special conferences and educational sessions offered at Memorial’s own “Innovation Café” — a dedicated space that was remodeled to support creative thinking and sharing.  The “Innovation Café” itself is the result of an innovisit to a Whirlpool Corporation facility that included an Innovation Training Center.   

The development of Memorial’s Heart and Vascular building is another example of ideas inspired by innovisits. While on one such visit, the innovistor team learned of a design consultancy whose architectural approach seemed like a much better fit with Memorial’s needs than the approach in development. The fact that the planning process was well underway did not deter Memorial from tapping the design consultancy to experiment with new design principles that resulted in a more patient-friendly center, replete with a meditation garden.  Memorial further supports the organization’s innovation effort through its “Wizard School” that trains the entire staff — from parking lot attendants to C-suite executives — to think creatively.

Kaiser Permanente has sponsored similar excursions.  For example, during a tour of a flight school, Kaiser staff took note of the “sterile cockpit” concept — specific times during a flight when no conversations are allowed between pilots unless they are necessary for safely flying the plane.  This concept was adapted to create safer medication administration protocols that reduced interruptions and errors.

At Kaiser, spreading new ideas is a massive undertaking due to the size of the organization — more than 175,000 employees. To meet this challenge, Kaiser’s Innovation Consultancy — an internal consulting group — will routinely run pilot projects in order to test and prove a concept.  The Consultancy will then use the results of those pilot projects to encourage other departments to adopt new ideas and improvements as well: its input in developing the Nurse Knowledge Exchange is an example of that. Working with nurses and patients, and tapping new tracking software for data input, the Consultancy team helped develop a quick, reliable and efficient process for transferring patient information between nurses at a patient’s bedside during shift changes. The impact of the Nurse Knowledge Exchange in boosting the quality of the information exchange and enhancing patient care soon led to its deployment at all Kaiser hospitals. In effect, the Consultancy accelerates the adoption of new ideas by doing much of the legwork required to implement new practices across multiple locations: Line managers are not burdened with the effort and work required to share and spread ideas with others.  (Here’s more on the Consultancy’s approach.)

A leadership team that has been constantly bombarded with mind-stretching ideas from other organizations and disparate industries will possess a treasure trove of proven and practical ideas ready to be adapted and implemented.  Many of the challenges that healthcare leaders will soon face — collapsing prices (consider Blu-Ray players now selling for $49); disruptive technologies (digital photography supplanting film); fierce competition (iPhones stealing the market made by Blackberry); and entirely new business models (Netflix doing what Blockbuster could not) — have already been seen in other industries, and have given rise to adaptive new strategies. Health care leaders would be unwise to repeat the mistakes of others; they would be foolish to overlook strategies and solutions that have already been developed and proven effective elsewhere.

Sleep drug development

Great story about the development of Merck’s novel action sleep drug…

From: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/09/131209fa_fact_parker?currentPage=all

The Big Sleep

A woman recently posted online a description of her Ambien experiences:

  • Ordered 3 pairs of saddle shoes from eBay
  • Sexted my best male friend who is married. I have a BF as well
  • Ordered $35.00 stylus off of amazon, I must have thought it said $3.00 or something
  • Played draw something w/my friend and drew penises and rainbows for every word
  • Tried to legally change my name on the computer

[…..]

Since the seventies, Stanford sleep scientists, led first by William Dement, had bred narcoleptic dogs. This was an achievement in itself. The animals suffered from extreme daytime sleepiness and had a propensity for mid-coital collapse: at moments of high emotion, the dogs, like narcoleptic humans, experienced sudden muscle weakness, or cataplexy. The first Stanford dog was a poodle named Monique. Later, there were other breeds; the Stanford colony, mostly Dobermans, had eighty dogs at its peak. Narcoleptic dogs gave birth to narcoleptic puppies; the disorder in canines has a single genetic cause. In 1999, after a decade-long search, a team led by Emmanuel Mignot, a researcher at Stanford, located the damaged gene, and reported that it encoded a receptor: the same one that had just been identified by the work done in California and Texas. Narcoleptic dogs lacked orexin receptors.